Silence and the Expectation of Sound

John Cage's 4'33 is intended to point out all of the sounds in life that go unnoticed.  He believed that these random sounds are music.  When he sits there in front of his piano in silence for 4 minutes and thirty three seconds, the audience becomes more aware of other sounds in the room.  They are expecting to hear music, so when they don't, other sounds become more prevalent.  Silence feels different depending on it's context.  It can feel awkward if you are in a room full of people you don't know very well, or if someone tells an offensive joke.  But it can feel peaceful if you are with someone you feel comfortable with, or you are by yourself.  When you are expecting to hear something, it makes you more aware of other sounds going on around you.  That is why is is necessary for John Cage to be on stage at a piano when performing 4'33.  When I'm sitting in my room doing homework, I am not expecting to hear sound.  Not all silent moments are the same.  John Cage's 4'33 is effective because it gives people an expectation and then does something different.  At first, I felt that 4'33 was sort of gimmicky.  I found it silly that he had to sit up on stage at a piano just to show everyone that silence can be musical.  Why couldn't he just tape record "silence" and play it for someone?  Or put them alone in a room?  I now realize that he is setting up expectations. 

Question:  Are all types of silence musical, or is it only when you are expecting to hear something?

"My Favorite Things"

It is dissapointing to think that we have little control over our tastes in music. It is something people take so much pride in, yet it isn't something they have accomplished; it is something they were given- at least, partly. In class, it was stated that many people's tastes in music were a direct influence from someone they grew up with. This makes sense; being exposed to a certain type of music will make you feel more familiar with it, and therefore you are more likely to enjoy it. Growing up in a certain culture, you are likely to prefer your own culture's music instead of another's. However, sometimes people rebel from the musical tastes they were raised to like. I know many teens who purposefully listen to music that they know their parents wont like. At first, I was inclined to say that this is just a phase and it doesn't last, but we discussed in class today that the music you listen to as an adolecent ussually resonates with you throughout your life. So, if you spend your teenage years listening to heavy metal soley because your parents don't like it, then I guess you are altering your future tastes in music.
I was also dissapointed to read in Chapter 8 of Levitin that you stop developing your musical tastes around the age of 18. I'm 18, and I hope that I'm not done discovering music. I still feel like I have a lot more to explore in music, and I don't think you are ever too old to try new things. However, I know that there are biological factors that make Levitin's statement true. But, I think those factors can be overcome if you are still willing to explore different genres of music.
Question: Regardless off what you know to be true, do you feel like you chose your tastes, or were they chosen for you?

Music As Sexual Fitness

I was really interested in the arguement in TIYBOM that music plays a role in sexual fitness. Levitin argues that, at one point, if a person was a musician, it meant that they had enough food and shelter that they could focus on other things- things that aren't necessary to survival but are just done for fun, such as singing or dancing. While this was probably once true, it definitely isn't anymore. Many musicians are STRUGGLING musicians; only a select few actually get rich from making music. I find this interesting. At one point in human history, humans would only make music if they had stable living and food conditions. Now, people sacrifice their economic stability in order to make music. Music is such a huge passion for some people that they put it before other things that are actually necessary for survival. So, in contemporary society, a female might associate a musician with someone who is not financially stable- unless he is one of the few that made a decent living out of music-making. Maybe in fifty thousand years females will have adapted to this, and they will avoid having sex with musicians because a struggling musician wouldn't be able to support a child. Chapter 9 of Levitin shed a lot of light on things that had always confused me. I was never sure why so many women were attracted to men who played instruments, but I did have some theories. I think that women see musicians as people who are more in touch with their emotions. The sterotypical "rockstar" guy might be attractive to females because he is aggressive yet sensitive enough to write emotional songs. But what about musicians that aren't the stereotypical rockstar guy? Levitin points out that rockstars such as Mick Jagger and Robert Plant have slept with more women than the average man, but what about men who play the violin? Or the flute? Or sing in the church choir? Why aren't these men having sex with as many women as rockstars do? I don't think that women see music ability as sexual fitness. They may see it as a positve trait that they would like to be passed on to their offspring, but they aren't going to be attracted to any man that can make music. I think women are more attracted to a certain image that is associated with music ability.
Question: Do males see music ability as sexual fitness in females? Or is it just females that see this quality as sexual fitness in males?

Response to Amy (Categorizing)

In her blog, Amy asked if categorizing is important to society.  My first instinct was to say no, it is not.  In fact, it is extremely counterproductive and damaging to our society.  I believe that there are things in this world that can't be categorized.  But, as humans, we try to make sense of every little thing.  Everything has to have a category, a label.  This is our way of gaining control over the things that mystify us.  But things are not so black and white that they are always going to fit into these ridiculous categories we have constructed.  Why does it matter if the song I'm listening to is classified as country or rap?  These categorizations give people a reason to start generalizing and stereotyping.  It shouldn't matter how my music is categorized.  It should only matter that I like it.  

However, I guess categorizing is important to society.  It gives us a sense -although maybe false sense- of stability and understanding.  It makes us feel as if we have some sort of grasp on this confusing world.  While I oppose the categorization of music, art, people, and many other things, I will admit that it does serve a purpose.  Where would we be if we didn't categorize things?

Breaking the Rules

In chapter seven of Levitin, I found it interesting that he talks about expert musicians who never learned how to play music in the traditional way.  For example, Joni Mitchell never took guitar lessons, but she is considered an expert at what she does.  Not only that, but she has approached music making from a very unique perspective and has done innovative things with chords.  Her lack of training is what gave her such an unconventional way of playing.  If she had taken guitar lessons and learned all the rules, she would have never thought to break them.  But it's not as if she way trying to "break the rules" of music; she didn't know them to begin with.

It has been stated in class that you have to know the rules in order to break them.  You have to be an expert at what you're doing before you start experimenting.  I'm not sure if I agree with that.  Joni Mitchell was breaking the rules without even knowing what they were.  Having rules for music, or any other art form, limits people's creativity.  In a way, Joni Mitchell was lucky to have never been taught the rules.  It made it easier for her to do be innovative.  That being said, there are benefits to having rules in music.  It makes it easier to organize and teach others.  My question is  is it better to be taught how to play an instrument by an expert, or to learn on your own?